Here is a revised version of the Solid Vision which hopefully expresses the core tenets of Solid in simpler, more accessible terms whilst also making Vision and Mission less compromised by short-term realities. Overall emphasis is still on interoperability but with obvious insinuation to the impact on privacy.

Self Determination is clearly an important shared value in the Solid community i.e. the idea that the individual should be able to decide what they want and not be squeezed into making a decision by unnecessary bundling of considerations such as keeping  contact details and a wish for privacy. 

Freedom is a very interesting word to replace interoperability because it captures the emotional essence of the drive. Freedom is a loaded word associated very much with US identity ([freedom fries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries)). I'm not sure it captures the value of Solid which is based on making agreements in the form of standards which could be seen as a form of constraint.  It would be helpful to talk about who has freedom from what because the software providers will have less freedom when they have to comply to standards that allow users the freedom to switch between services. In the rebooting the web of trust 2018 conference there were some conversations around the data that sits in-between two people. So, for example, genetic data. Your decisions around your personal data can influence others. In the case of genetic data, your family. So one person having the freedom to decide about their own data may be in conflict with anther persons freedom. How do we capture the idea that people should have the ability to self determine while not infringing on the freedom of others?

I think 'Diversity' in combination with Self-Determination may capture the Solid values more accurately because it delivers on the idea of offering options that the user should be able to pick from.

Perhaps it's an idea to refer to "fairness" rather than "equality" because "fairness" is a term regularly used in GDPR and making the direct link will make the overlap in intention more apparent. I also think that fairness captures the idea that some may have different needs from others and perfect equality can be unfair too.

One emotion that I see spoken about frequently in the Solid channels is this idea that rules need to be kept at a minimum. Rules for the sake of rules should be removed and only the bare essential should be in place to deliver on the core mission and values.

Rather than referring to Solid directly as a standard or multiple standards (still a debate I hear on the Solid channels) perhaps we should define the aim of the standard  

I'm wondering how we can be clear about technical standard (or standardS?) being involved while still giving room to design other elements of the solution too. 


Section 5 of the latest version of the spec table of contents proposal is around privacy which Ruben mentioned in the W3C Solid Community Group meeting would likely need a legal component. 

 Maybe something that needs clarifying too. I'd be really interested in making sure the explanation of Solid is clear yet gives space to further development.

While data sharing is a vehicle I think we can get closer to the why. Tried to edge closer by talking about collaboration and knowledge creation for public interest.

Is the Solid mission pure interoperability or there is a driver of that interoperability that we should be uncovering?

"It might be because I'm not a native speaker, but is "resting control to users" (second sentence under "What is Solid?") a valid sentence? It reminds me of "wresting something from someone", but that doesn't seem to fit perfectly either."

Tried to rephrase the description of Solid so that it is neutral to techniques used.